Author: Mogens Larsen
Date: 16:25:23 05/22/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 22, 2000 at 16:22:40, ujecrh wrote: >I completely agree with this. Yes, I also agree that this is the case right now. >A good example is the notion of tempo in the opening (Nimzovitsh nicely explains >this in "My system"). This is really not difficult to write some code so that >the chess program knows how to gain (or avoid a loss of) tempo in the opening >(without tactical reasons for it of course) but I know commercial programs that >do not have this kind of evaluation. They simply, for instance, move pieces >again and again if, as far as their evaluation is concerned, this is the best >move. Sounds more like a challenge to write competent code than an excuse for jumping the fench. It sounds like that to me anyway. >If a programmer wanted to play a better opening without any book then he would >simply add this kind of knowledge to his engine. Not difficult but also not >necessary as long as book takes care of it. If mankind were guided by necessity alone, we wouldn't have gotten very far IMO. A bicycle isn't an excuse not to invent a car. But I agree that it's highly unlikely that this kind of knowledge will be added. I can live with that. Just don't tell me it's the optimal solution from a theoretical standpoint, because I disagree. Sincerely, Mogens
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.